Capitalist pigs

Jonathan Hoeng is the proverbial “capitalist pig.” He is the twenty-something author of a personal finance primer called “Greed is Good: The Capitalist Pig Guide to Investing.” He is also a radio talk show host and commodities trader. The central concept behind his claim to fame is the slick marketing of a hip and defiant brand of capitalism. Mr. Hoeng basically intends to make capitalism look cool, socially redeeming, and alluring to the Generation Xers.

Mr. Hoeng has hit upon a truly worthwhile project. Capitalists should be proud and unapologetic. It should be cool to be an unabashed capitalist. We should push this popular marketing of capitalism even further, so that no one will ever feel ashamed to openly speak of money in gratifying terms.

After all, the late Deng Xiao Ping, China’s former Communist Party leader, already declared that “To get rich is glorious.” Yet today many Americans still think of money in crass, crude and vulgar terms–as something not to be openly striving for.

Yet nearly half of all Americans are stock holders. Most working Americans have 401 (k) plans, Individual Retirement Accounts, mutual funds, stocks, bonds, money market accounts, real property, or other appreciating assets. We are all capitalists now.

So why be ashamed of it? Why downplay our lust for material possessions?

It is time that the mutual fund industry takes notice–and immediately adapts to this emerging capitalist pig trend. Mutual funds should advertise more honestly, in keeping with this newfound love of capitalist piggery.

Some funds should change their names, for example. Although we already have names like “The Profit Value Fund,” we need to go even further and come up with names like “The Profit Motive Fund,” or “The Greed Fund.”

And why not call a spade a spade? Why not, for example, just say “The Fidelity Junk Bond Fund”? Why bother to use “High Yield” or other euphemisms?

And what is this business of “high net worth individuals”? It seems that every time I read a mutual fund prospectus, some reference is made to certain “high net worth individuals.” Why not just say “rich people” or wealthy/affluent individuals? Why be sanitary about it, as if there were something inherently dirty about making money or being wealthy?

This is not like “collateral damage” in military campaigns, now is it?

Or how about “The Corrupt Government Municipal Bond Fund”? “The Pornographic Sector Fund” (specializing in the hot new erotic growth industry)? “The Russian Mafia Growth and Income Fund A”? (full load) “The Miller-Stayman Sweatshop Obsession Fund B”?

The possibilities are endless.